Comparison of different liver fibrosis scores following sleeve gastrectomy

7Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Purpose: The prevalence of obesity, along with that of its associated health conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, and liver diseases, such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), is increasing annually. Bariatric surgery is indicated for the treatment of obesity if conservative treatment fails. While various liver fibrosis scores have been proposed for assessing liver function, they are typically used prior to bariatric surgery. This study aimed to determine whether fibrosis scores calculated from non-invasive parameters are effective in monitoring liver function after bariatric surgery. Methods: This study analyzed data from 151 patients who underwent sleeve gastrectomy (SG) and were followed up at 3, 6, 9, 12, 24, and 36 months postoperatively. From the routinely collected parameters, liver fibrosis scores (APRI, Fib-4, BARD, Forns index [FORNS], Lok score [LOK], and NAFLD scores) were calculated retrospectively and compared to diabetes status % excess weight loss (%EWL) and % total weight loss (%TWL) over a 3-year follow-up period. Results: After SG, APRI, FORNS, and NAFLD scores showed significant improvements, whereas Fib-4, BARD, and LOK scores did not improve. Similarly, body mass index, %EWL, %TWL, and diabetes status also improved significantly. Throughout the 3-year follow-up period, only the APRI and NAFLD scores showed significant improvement. Conclusion: Only APRI and NAFLD scores changed significantly after SG. Thus, these two scores may be used to reflect and monitor liver function in patients who have undergone SG.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Alexander, H., Falk, R., Utz, S., Felix, D., Aladdin, A. D., Hermann, K., … Michael, A. (2025). Comparison of different liver fibrosis scores following sleeve gastrectomy. Langenbeck’s Archives of Surgery, 410(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00423-024-03569-5

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free